[UnknownVT]

I do wonder on some of these things. I have a wide gamut monitor at work and one that has an sRGB setting. THe one with the sRGB setting (supposedly pre-calibrated) right off the start does not have a white point set right.

Many of the monitor reviews at the detailed respected review sites seem to show that many monitors are preset slightly warmer than the standard 6500K (D65) - sometimes as low as 5000K -
this may be deliberate:
1) lower color temps like 5000-5900K seem more attractive and less cool/clinical.
2) traditional film photography is balanced for about 5500K (our Pentax dSLRs seemed to be balanced for about 5200K)
3) traditional photo viewing/inspection was at about 5500K

I'm not sure Wide Gamut is the end all otherwise. I find it creates a lot of challenges outside of photography, and I tend to send out to labs so the advantage of other color spaces is lost on me once I get to the final result, although I can see the advantages while PP. In some ways I liken that to processing in 16-bits vs. 8-bits and limiting the losses to the final step (i.e. saving to a JPG). It's not perfect, but it makes me feel better about the wide gamut monitor I bought. I'm not sure why my office bought them as they provide no benefit from a productivity stand-point.

This is an excellent and very important point you made here.

Most including me - would think wider the gamut ie: more colors the better - hence my opening bit about gamut in the opening post.

BUT unless one is willing to understand color management and all the components that it entails that also need to be color managed -
it may turn out to be very troublesome -
(caveat: I obviously do not include people with real expertise in color management and calibration)

If I may, I'll re-quote/emphasize the response to someone else by a poster over at another forum who is very well respected and is very knowledgeable about monitors and color management:

However, while wide gamut monitors may offer the the best visual colour experience, they can be very troubling for users that don't understand the basics of colour management and use of a calibrator, and don't have software that is color managed. Using a standard sRGB gamut monitor avoids most of these issues.

One point with better quality wide gamut monitors is that most have a pretty good preset sRGB mode so if you're not ready for the colour management issues, you can simply use the monitor in sRGB mode until the time that you want to tackle this challenge.

Since I take shots in sRGB, process in sRGB and most of the monitors out in the world are supposed to display sRGB, and most pro print labs handle sRGB -
- I limited my ambitions to a 100% sRGB gamut monitor, which has a sRGB Preset Mode.

Fortuitously it also is based on an AH-IPS panel which at least LG claims AH-IPS has been certified by Intertek as having accurate colors.

All this in basically what is a budget priced and close to bottom-of-the-line IPS monitor!

Many thanks for your very valuable observations and input.

[UnknownVT]

A really interesting thread! I've been using an old Dell CRT and hardware calibration with reasonable success. I've felt that a decent flat screen IPS monitor would be financially beyond me; I may rethink this. Since my computer (the Monolith) can drive two monitors the old Dell could be used alongside a new IPS.

Thanks.

I was so surprised (pleasantly) by what I found/bought that I felt I should post to share.

There are IPS monitors that claim 100% sRGB gamut and have sRGB preset mode:

Doing a google on IPS 100% sRGB finds a few monitors - and at the budget end (<$250)

Asus PB238Q - 23" 1920x1080, IPS, 100% sRGB gamut, and sRGB Preset Mode.
I believe this is only e-IPS BUT it is versatile with VESA mount which allows the monitor to be mounted vertically in portrait mode
(I don't need that but thought I should mention this)

ViewSonic VX2270Smh-LED - 22" (21.5" viewable) 1920x1080, AH-IPS, 100% sRGB gamut, and sRGB Preset Mode.

ViewSonic VX2370Smh-LED - 23" 1920x1080, AH-IPS, 100% sRGB gamut and sRGB Preset Mode.

Personally I like the idea of AH-IPS as that is the panel technology used in those new high pixel density smartphones - and LG claims that AH-IPS has been certified by InterTek as color accurate -
this means that AH-IPS is intrinsically more color accurate, than any other budget IPS panel and unless it has a shorter life-span - ought to maintain its color accuracy better (the latter is an assumption on my part)

So my preference and purchase was the ViewSonic VX2270Smh-LED.
as I prefer a smaller/more compact screen and higher pixel density.

For the smaller screen size of 22-23" for now the ViewSonics seem to be the only game in town with AH-IPS, 100% sRGB gamut, and sRGB Preset Mode -
eg: although LG (the panel manufacturer) does have its own monitors they do not specifically claim 100% sRGB nor sRGB Preset Mode.
Asus also now has AH-IPS monitors but they again do not claim to have 100% sRGB gamut, although they do have sRGB Preset Mode.
(note: there are now 27" monitors with AH-IPS 100% sRGB gamut with sRGB Preset Mode - but at much higher prices)

Thanks,

[emalvick]

Well on gamut, it isn't even a lack of understanding or knowledge that can be troublesome, although I guess it is knowing that colors will be funny when apps aren't color management.

As for the presets on the monitors, I think they are all going to be certified as accurate, but just keep in mind that accurate doesn't necessarily mean they are set right. It just means they can be set right if calibrated. I would find it hard to believe that any monitor would not be accurate or certified as accurate. Then again, any standard gamut monitor (I doubt there are many that have less than 100% sRGB as that has been the basis for most monitors) is going to be somewhat close to nicely calibrated from the beginning with perhaps the exception of brightness, which you'll probably need to tone down independently of the profile, which shouldn't affect the profile itself.

For instance, I calibrated my laptop before a trip I took last year, and the difference between the profile and the default sRGB profile, was so subtle, I had to look twice to see it. That's fine. Calibration will only become an issue if the prints you get don't meet what you expect, in which case you can decide how big of a deal it is. I use a calibrator, but it was only after I had a problem, which was fine. I'm not a professional photographer and the time when I needed a calibrator allowed the technology and prices associated with the devices to advance.

[UnknownVT]

(I doubt there are many that have less than 100% sRGB as that has been the basis for most monitors)

I believe this used to be true for CRT monitors - as the sRGB standard was based on crt.

However with LCD - especially TN lcd monitors are not necessarily accurate nor 100% sRGB -
otherwise more monitors would be advertized as such - unfortunately it is no longer commonplace,

IPS panels can achieve 100% sRGB depending on the backlight used - but again not many claim that nor advertize that.
(I really can't believe I could be the only person who'd value a monitor with 100% sRGB gamut)

As for sRGB Preset Mode - this has to have been set/calibrated -
granted this may well some automated adjustment/calibration -
but it least ought to be better than no calibration at all.

Like I said short of using a calibration tool - I can only do things by eye
and using all those on-line monitor calibration pages seems to show this monitor is pretty well adjusted.

For example the Photo Friday page I had a heck of a time adjusting my old crt monitor to display all the black and white levels -
and even then I needed a darken room to see the black levels -
with this ViewSonic I can see all the levels with ease in my normal (subdued) room lighting.

Using even more demanding pages
Lagom.nl Black Levels
Lagom.nl White Saturation
again I can see all the patches with ease, under my normal but subdued room lighting.

Note: under the sRGB preset Mode - all adjustments including brightness and contrast are disabled.

As for colors please see Post #2 above.

---

Last edited by UnknownVT; 02-06-2013 at 04:21 PM.

[Miguel]

A monitor choice for photography really has to be in line with your future requirements. You want to buy ahead because most photographers grow their skills and ambitions, especially if they keep acquiring new cameras and lenses.


I am OK with spending more money on devices that involve my direct interaction with a computer: monitors, keyboards, pointing devices and all that. If I’m spending all that time (too much of course) at the computer, I want it to be as comfortable and valuable as possible.

The newer cheaper IPS variants like UnknownVT uses I’m sure work really well for most of us. It’s great that prices are coming down for better quality tools.

I advise my clients to get a good IPS-H monitor if they are aiming to output saleable prints. For black and white work you need to see the full range of tones. The monitors are also much easier on the eyes as different viewing angles are accommodated. It is also a PITA to get rid of a cheaper monitorthat may have met your needs for only two years prior.
An sRGB environment does work fine for most shooters. And few people can perceive relatively slight differences in some saturated colors. That said, new monitors and printers have expanded their gamut producing capabilities, so I think that wide-gamut devices are a smart future-based choice. We are spoiled somewhat.


Monitors are kind of like tripods—the cheap ones work for a while, but sooner or later you’ll be forking over serious money for the one that you’ll keep for decades. Maybe I feel this way because I probably have less decades to hang out than many of you!


To me, display calibration and color management processes really are still quite immature and far too unwieldy. There are so many variables throughout the process involved in outputting an accurate image or print. It’s really difficult to know when you’ve reached a sufficient level of “management”—(a dry bank account and starving children tend to be strong indicators).


The excellent folks at Dry Creek Photo provide a lot of useful and clearly written information about display calibration hardware and software. Their evaluation I find valuable. After I upgraded to OS-X 10.7 (Lion) all of my calibration tools were pretty much obsolete.


I ended up purchasing the Xrite i1 Display Pro hardware colorimeter. I use this with the open-source ArgylllCMS calibration and profiling software. dispcalGUI is a graphical front end to ArgylllCMS that makes it usable for the non-technically gifted like myself. I compared the results with those obtained from the Xrite software that came with the colorimeter. The difference was striking with ArgylllCMS providing more accurate rendering of images and better consistency between both of my monitors.

Prior to calibration, you are supposed to reset the monitor to its default. I’ve found that to mean 100% RGB and the brightness set to 11. Ouch. Some calibration and profiling software has a mode that totally automates the calibration process, freeing you from dealing with the monitor push button rigmarole and some guessing that often goes on.
I preferred the results from the advanced mode of ArgylllCMS. Though you have to endure the button pushing exercises, the software shows you when you are approaching and then within an acceptable range. The software also takes advantage of the Xrite device’s ability to measure ambient lighting in your environment resulting in an excellent luminance setting for both monitors. It is not easy synching two different monitors.


Most office environments are too washed out to properly calibrate and profile a monitor. The only setup I’ve seen that worked was using the La Cie Electron Blue monitor hoods and having mellow ambient lighting in a controlled space. These setups were similar to those I encountered when I worked for a photo licensing house and a couple of advertising agencies.


No panaceas here. Some prints just don't output good even if you got your act calibrated and profiled. Another poster referred to the solution as a "secret," and on some days I understand completely what he is talking about. I prefer to interpret it as a little bit of wisdom and a whole lotta luck.


M

[emalvick]

I don't think you are the only one who values 100% sRGB. Many participating in this thread value more than that, thus the discussion on wide gamut. I recently browsed a bit for monitors to potentially upgrade a wide gamut I had to a potentially bigger size, and found that the amount of colors means more than the marketing. I never looked at the specific monitors you are showing, but I did look at some IPS panels and saw that each brand has their own terminologies and that the most important feature was the number of colors. Many panels that had 100% sRGB listed as a feature had the same number of colors as some that didn't specifically state they didn't have 100%. Many monitors will specify the color space with respect to adobe-RGB. It doesn't mean they don't do 100% sRGB. It often means they do more, but other monitors value other aspects of monitors will get featured more because hardware manufactures market to a low knowledge user rather than high end users. I find it easier to find features and characteristics for those monitors in the range I can't afford than those that I can. I'd love to be able to buy an NEC monitor, but I'll have to wait.

To Miguel, I'm going to have to check out the software you discuss. I have the same device, but I'm not terribly satisfied with its software. It seems it wants you to make some button adjustments, but besides brightness, I find the buttons don't help me out a whole lot and make the results worse than if I let the software do everything on its own. I've never been dissatisfied with the results, but I'm sure I could do better.

THe whole luck thing is quite true. I don't think I ever thought about calibrating until my luck ran out. Mostly, it was a result of printing a dark image and finding it quite dark on paper. It led me to the x-rite calibrator, which at the time was the only one (in its price range) that dealt with luminance and ambient light.

THe office environment is also true, but it's just more odd that we have wide gamut when we do nothing for imaging or photography. There's no point in calibrating here, and I am sure our office management would never think to do something like that. It's just odd that they bought 100+ of these monitors. If they weren't 22", I'd love to find their supplier as they usually cut corner on costs. All I can figure is they were a clearance item or that in buying some higher power systems for the engineering work we do, they ended up buying machines tailored for a photography based work place. Our machines wouldn't be bad for PP although they are 2 or 3 years old now. Enough digression.

This is a nice and useful thread.

[Brazeal]

When I upgraded my monitor recently , I reviewed numerous models and looked for what photographers suggested. I compared all the different panels and researched the importance of 100% sRGB vs. wide gamut models. TFT Central is a great resource for reviews on monitors, and they show you all of the tests, calibration results, etc. Contrary to what some people believe, total number of colors does not equate to 100% sRGB (more complicated than that) and not that many budget monitors will calibrate to achieve 100% sRGB. I picked a monitor that TFT Central verified would calibrate to 100% sRGB , as the manufacturer claimed, and I'm pleased with my choice.

[UnknownVT]

Many participating in this thread value more than that, thus the discussion on wide gamut. I recently browsed a bit for monitors to potentially upgrade a wide gamut I had to a potentially bigger size, and found that the amount of colors means more than the marketing. I never looked at the specific monitors you are showing, but I did look at some IPS panels and saw that each brand has their own terminologies and that the most important feature was the number of colors. Many panels that had 100% sRGB listed as a feature had the same number of colors as some that didn't specifically state they didn't have 100%. Many monitors will specify the color space with respect to adobe-RGB. It doesn't mean they don't do 100% sRGB. It often means they do more, but other monitors value other aspects of monitors will get featured more because hardware manufactures market to a low knowledge user rather than high end users. I find it easier to find features and characteristics for those monitors in the range I can't afford than those that I can.

Thanks. I agree with you.

But because I actually had to commit money to a purchase of the new monitor (granted only budget)
I did not want to work on assumptions and only looked at monitors that explicitly spec'd 100% sRGB -
and to my surprise there were very few in the budget and smaller screen range -
yes, at much higher prices and 27" and above there are now quite few than can do 100% sRGB and close to 100% AdobeRGB (wider gamut than sRGB)
but that's not where, nor what I was looking for.

I know for example the new 27" Dell UltraSharp U2723HM does 100% sRGB is based on AH-IPS and has a sRGB Preset Mode (and is certified factory calibrated)

from Dell U2713HM review at tftCentral.co.uk

The U2713HM follows a similar path to the U2412M last year. Perhaps the most significant change is the move from wide gamut CCFL backlighting to a W-LED unit. This brings about several changes as it did for the 24" range. The screen can now offer a slimmer profile and brings with it environmental and energy saving benefits. From a user experience point of view the screen now covers only a standard sRGB gamut instead of the wide gamut of the old model.

my bold highlighting......
and that's a $600 (street price) monitor!

To get the wide gamut version one has to step to the Dell UltraSharp U2713H (very similar model # just without the 'M') -
an $800 monitor!

The introduction of the Dell U2713H review at tftCentral.co.uk gives a very good clarification of the Dell UltraSharp naming convention, and explanation of the U2713H.

A monitor choice for photography really has to be in line with your future requirements. You want to buy ahead because most photographers grow their skills and ambitions, especially if they keep acquiring new cameras and lenses.

Thanks Miguel for your input -
I more than understand my lack of monitor ambitions is not for everyone and that there are bigger and better things out there.

After all I am only talking about a budget bottom-of-the-line IPS monitor whose cost is less than your calibration tool.

An analogy is talking about the entry level Hyundai for shopping at the local supermarket -
and being told a Rolls Royce with full diagnostic and tuning service is better.

Of course it is - there is absolutely no denying that -
but is the cheap car suitable for the purpose it was intended?
yes, but with some caveats of course, it is only a cheap car......
but if it had say a new engine design and pre-tuned to get better fuel efficiency -
unique for now in a budget car -
it is of course still not as good as the top of the line Rolls Royce -
but surely it is not worthless, and has to be better than a car that does not have those features -
and if they are pretty new - there are probably cars that cost much more that do not have those....

eg: the cheapo ViewSonic is based on AH-IPS - most monitors are not - evidence that AH-IPS is a good technology is that most of the new introductions and announcements for the Dell UltraSharp range are AH-IPS
from: Wikipedia on TFT LCD:

Advanced High Performance IPS AH-IPS 2011 Improved colour accuracy, increased resolution and PPI, and greater light transmission for lower power consumption[10]

the [10] references - LG Announces Super High Resolution AH-IPS Displays
also most of the newer wide gamut monitors have sRGB Preset Modes -
again this is now on a budget $160 monitor -
the preset on the cheapo may not be as good or accurate as on the more premium monitors -
but we're talking about a feature on the higher-end monitors that cost at least 4-5 times as much.....

I do appreciate your input and value your experience -
but have to take things into context here.......

Thank you.

[UnknownVT]

When I upgraded my monitor recently , I reviewed numerous models and looked for what photographers suggested. I compared all the different panels and researched the importance of 100% sRGB vs. wide gamut models. TFT Central is a great resource for reviews on monitors, and they show you all of the tests, calibration results, etc. Contrary to what some people believe, total number of colors does not equate to 100% sRGB (more complicated than that) and not that many budget monitors will calibrate to achieve 100% sRGB. I picked a monitor that TFT Central verified would calibrate to 100% sRGB , as the manufacturer claimed, and I'm pleased with my choice.

Thanks very much for that valuable input.

That is what I found in my research too and since I had to part with hard earned cash - even if it is only budget -
I would only choose monitors that explicitly spec'd 100% sRGB
(ie: I will not gamble on an assumption that other monitors have 100% sRGB -
a good example is TN lcd monitors
and the reason why almost no one recommends TN for photo processing
and recommend IPS -
I know that CCFL backlights being phased out -
but the backlights are important to the gamut
and it's really only since LED backlighting that 100% sRGB became practical

Thank you for your input based on actual experience.